Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
I'm personally anti-gun, but the country is to big and the borders too porous for any real gun control measures to succeed.
I respect the 2nd Amendment, but I find it hard to make the leap that the founders would feel the same about today's weapons that they did about those of their time. The Constitution was written at a time of muskets and single shot pistols. Stating unconditionally that they'd feel the same way about 33 round magazines and automatic weapons (etc., etc.)
|
the framers wrote the constitution with the idea that the people could always retain power over the central government, especially with their experience that a standing army was the bane to liberty. They also grudgingly agreed that a standing army was necessary for defense, but that the people should be as well armed as that standing army to maintain their liberty.
you find it hard to make that leap simply because you are anti gun and are unable to accept that the framers believed that the people should always be more powerful than the government.
---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanT
The problem with 2nd amendment folks is that they see the issue as black and white / all or nothing. I've lived with some certifiable "gun nuts", I'm pretty damned indifferent to gun ownership, in general. There is clearly an escalating issue with gun violence and an absolute refusal to even discuss the issue among 2nd amendment folks. I also find it intellectually dishonest to continually quote the portion of the second amendment that you like, while ignoring it's qualifying clause.
|
the 'well regulated militia' consists of 'we the people'. as George Mason said, "who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
it's not the national guard and it's not law enforcement.